Category talk:Not So Bad After All
I really don't think characters who satisfy this criteria, or parallel ones, belong on this Wiki anyway. Letting them in opens the floodgates to all those characters who just aren't really EVIL at all. To my mind it compromises/dilutes the whole point of the thing we have had here. That is, that it was meant for EVIL babes - not - "well, just misguided altruists" / "making the wrong choices"/"not so bad that they're not capable of reforming totally".... babes. It's not my Wiki, I''m just a regular contributor from the beginning of the site, but I've always rigorously excluded any ambiguous characters from those contributions to make sure there was no question of their evil nature. And largely this is what we had posted from contributors 'till quite recently.'' Evil is not - "not so bad after all". :I've been coming around to this line of thinking too, as you can probably guess from the last 24 hours, Initially, I felt that some "not so bads" had enough other appeal that they should not be excluded, but knew in the back of my mind that this could be problematic down the road. However, I don't want to just delete the work that others have made on these articles, either. I'm looking into a solution right now, however, that I think may allow these examples to stay, without them cluttering up search results. Akujo (talk) 23:11, February 26, 2016 (UTC) At the end of the day this issue it comes down to what sort of site it is to be. Properly evil female characters are, in my observations at least, rather outnumbered in popular culture by the much less "evil", rather more sympathetic "bad girl" types. I think the runboard forum used the word "evil" rather than simply" bad", or even "villainesses" to try to try to exclude these and be more precise about the sort of nasty women they were "celebrating" (if that's the right word!). :I agree with you, Zipp, but I think I may have a pretty decent answer. Blog posts. As you can see here , they are still able to appear in category pages, but in their own separate section at the bottom. This way, they can be completely ignored by those of us who don't wish to view them. Akujo (talk) 23:52, February 26, 2016 (UTC) I have doubts, that EVERY character with a "Freudian Excuse" is "not so bad after all". I posted Béatrice Dalle's character from "Inside" a few days ago. Her loss of her unborn child sure "made her that way", but she is a true evil character never the less. Have you seen the movie? On the other hand, I agree, that "redeemed" can be considered "not so bad after all", generaly speaking. But I also have doubts, if sprites from computer game, who simply hurt another sprite on collision, like the "pool girls" or the gals, who don't want to visit the hairdresser, shouldn't be considered "not so bad after all"? 00:40, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :I did watch the movie, and she most certainly is heinous. However, I wanted to create a unified term for Redeem/Remorse/FE, and "not so bad" just seemed to be the best fit. It's more to show that there was still intent by the creators to make you sympathize with the character, than actually disqualifying her actual terrible deeds. Video game zako just sort of have special treatment all around on this site, where nearly all are given neither "bad" or "not-so-bad" status, unless it is specifically mentioned by the game itself. While we're on the subject, if you can transfer your "not so bad"-tagged pages to blog pages, it would be appreciated. If not, just let me know. Akujo (talk) 00:54, February 27, 2016 (UTC) :I went ahead and added "Wasn't so Bad Until..." to the description, so that Freudian Excuse makes more sense. Akujo (talk) 01:57, February 27, 2016 (UTC)